DHP for non residential lease

If she is liable for business rates, then it cant be residential, can it?  All that blurb on the lease seems to simply mean she can only use the workshop as such, and the landlord cannot guarantee that such use will be allowed in perpetuity. Well, that how I am reading it anyway.

The slightly confusing bit in your post is its a ‘workshop/chalet’ .  So, is it split into two separate areas?

the lease just says workshop/chalet . The"spaces” have hot water and a loo, no idea if any other facilities .

UC have accepted its housing costs - a DHP says UCHE need to be in poayment and the customer require additinal assistance with housing costs.

If someone is subletting from a tenanct that cant sublet, they are still treatd as having a rnt liability
She has a rnt liability for a workshop, but is choosing to live their too )albeit probably in breach of her tenancy -

While my instinct says no, i cant find the regs that say this couldnt be treated a shousing costs ( which arent degfined apart from having to be for rent?)
It would be hard to [pay cos the address isnt listed as a residential address on our systems so cant link it but thats a technical issue rather than a reason to say no.

Flummoxed

I’m not sure I see any reason why HB or UC HCE would not be payable. To massively simplify, the questions are (1) do you live there as a home? and (2) are you liable to pay rent? On the facts which you are aware of, the answer to both questions is plainly “yes”. The fact that it may be that the property is not intended to be occupied as a home, seems to me to be besides the point. I also don’t see why it matters that she is in apparent breach of the user clause - that is surely between her and the landlord.

But even if that is wrong, so what? UC have decided that there is an eligibility to housing costs which is sufficient then to open the door to a DHP award. I don’t see that you are expected to go behind their decision making.

I think there are completely independent questions as to whether the arrangement might put either landlord or tenant in breach of planning law and business rates rules. In turn, there is a question of principle as to whether the Council wishes to use its DHP funds to support this arrangement in those circumstances.

The argument against awarding HB or a UC housing element would rely on the old R v Warrington BC exp Williams case, which is on this site somewhere I think but I cannot be bothered linking to it as I’m on my phone. But it goes something like this:

- if you rent business premises and run a business out of those premises, you are incurring rent for that business use
- if you happen to live there as well, contrary to the terms of the lease, it isn’t costing you any more rent to do that. You are not making any additional payments in respect of a dwelling if you have to make the same payments in respect of a work space in any case

While there is a UC housing element in this case, the Council could still take the view that these are not “housing costs” for DHP purposes, relying on Williams.

Not saying what I think you should do, I think you have discretion either way.

Williams attached

Thats really really helpful, thanks all
have a great weekend